Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and Intel Arc A380 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape. The K5100M is a 2013-era professional mobile solution built on Kepler, while the Arc A380 is a 2022 desktop part using Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear overall winner: the Arc A380 leads in the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, by a decisive margin. However, the two cards serve entirely different purposes, and their architectural and specification differences are substantial.

The recorded data shows that the Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10043, placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The Arc A380, by contrast, scores an average of 8558, landing at the 44th percentile. This is a curious situation: the older Quadro holds a higher percentile ranking despite losing the direct head-to-head test. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix. The K5100M has only two recorded tests (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL), both of which are compute-oriented. The Arc A380 has ten tests spanning DirectX 9 through 12, Vulkan, and compute workloads. The Arc’s lower average is dragged down by very low DirectX scores, particularly its Passmark DirectX 10 score of 37 and DirectX 11 score of 38. These legacy API results are not representative of its modern capabilities, but they pull the overall average down.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A380 wins the only direct comparison available: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the Arc scores 38224 against the Quadro’s 11771, a delta of -69.2 percent from the Arc’s perspective (meaning the Quadro is 69.2 percent slower). This is a massive gap, roughly 3.25 times higher compute throughput in favor of Intel. The Arc also has a strong Geekbench Vulkan score of 36736, though no Vulkan score is recorded for the Quadro. In terms of raw FP32 compute, the Arc delivers 4.198 TFLOPS versus the Quadro’s 2.369 TFLOPS, a 77 percent advantage. The Arc also has higher pixel rate (65.60 GPixel/s vs. 24.67 GPixel/s) and texture rate (131.2 GTexel/s vs. 98.69 GTexel/s). These numbers point to the Arc being decisively faster in modern compute and rasterization workloads.

The Quadro K5100M wins in a different sense: it has a higher percentile ranking (48th vs. 44th) and a higher average benchmark score (10043 vs. 8558). Its Geekbench Metal score of 8315 is a data point the Arc cannot match, as no Metal benchmark is recorded for the Intel part. The Quadro’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375, which scores 10070, a delta of -0.3 percent (the Quadro is essentially tied). The Arc’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8595, a delta of -0.4 percent. So the Quadro sits in a slightly higher performance tier among its peers despite being much older. This is because its benchmark set is compute-heavy, where Kepler still performs respectably.

For use-case selection, the data suggests the Arc A380 for any workload that uses OpenCL, Vulkan, or modern DirectX 12. The Quadro K5100M has no recorded DirectX performance at all, so any gaming or DirectX-based application cannot be evaluated for it. The Quadro’s strength is in Metal (Apple ecosystem) and OpenCL compute, where it remains competitive with mid-range mobile GPUs from 2015-era. The Arc is a desktop card with a dual-slot form factor, 222 mm length, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, designed for standard desktops. The Quadro is an MXM module, meant for laptops and mobile workstations. That alone dictates their use cases: the Quadro is for professional mobile work, the Arc for budget desktop builds.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10043, while the Intel Arc A380 scores 8558 on average.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A380 scores 38224, versus the Quadro’s 11771. The Arc leads by 69.2 percent (the Quadro’s score is 69.2 percent lower).

Q: Which card has better DirectX support?

A: The Intel Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Arc has recorded Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 73 in DirectX 9, 35 in DirectX 12), while no DirectX benchmarks are recorded for the Quadro.

Q: What are the memory specifications?

A: The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc has higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus and less capacity.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The Arc A380 runs at 2000 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, compared to the Quadro’s 771 MHz base and boost. The Arc also has faster memory: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Arc A380 has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die (45.9 million per mm²). The Quadro has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die (12.0 million per mm²). The Arc has more than double the transistors in roughly half the die area.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head test in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The Arc A380’s score of 38224 crushes the Quadro’s 11771. The delta is -69.2 percent, meaning the Quadro’s result is only 30.8 percent of the Arc’s. This is not a close contest. The Arc’s FP32 compute of 4.198 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS for the Quadro explains much of the gap, as OpenCL heavily stresses raw shader throughput. The Arc also has 1024 shading units at 2050 MHz boost, while the Quadro has 1536 shading units at 771 MHz. Although the Quadro has more shading units, the Arc’s much higher clock speed and newer architecture deliver far more work per clock. The Arc’s texture rate of 131.2 GTexel/s is 33 percent higher than the Quadro’s 98.69 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s is 166 percent higher (2.66 times). These fillrate advantages are consistent with the OpenCL result.

Beyond the direct test, the Arc’s other benchmarks paint a picture of a GPU that is strong in modern APIs but weak in legacy DirectX. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 73 is the highest of its DirectX scores, while DirectX 10 (37), DirectX 11 (38), and DirectX 12 (35) are all low. The Passmark G3D score of 6252 and G2D of 610 suggest decent general performance, but the compute score of 2762 is modest compared to its OpenCL result. The Quadro, with only Metal and OpenCL scores, cannot be compared on these tests. The Geekbench Metal score of 8315 for the Quadro is its only strong modern-API result, but Metal is Apple-specific and not applicable to Windows or Linux desktop use. The Arc’s Vulkan score of 36736 is also notable, showing strong performance in that API, though no Vulkan test exists for the Quadro.

The data indicates that the Arc A380 is the faster GPU in every measurable shared dimension. The Quadro’s higher average score comes solely from having a smaller, compute-focused benchmark set. When forced to compete on the same test, the Quadro loses by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is form factor. The Quadro K5100M is an MXM Module, using the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The Arc A380 is a dual-slot desktop card, 222 mm long, 114 mm tall, and 42 mm wide, using PCIe 4.0 x8. The Quadro has no power connectors, drawing 100 W TDP. The Arc requires a single 8-pin power connector, has a 75 W TDP, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro’s display outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the Arc has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Memory differs significantly. The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. Despite having 2 GB less capacity and a 160-bit narrower bus, the Arc’s faster GDDR6 memory delivers 61 percent more bandwidth. Clock speeds are also far apart. The Quadro runs at 771 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The Arc runs at 2000 MHz base and 2050 MHz boost, with memory at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The Arc’s boost clock is 166 percent higher.

Shading resources differ too. The Quadro has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Arc has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro has 50 percent more shading units and double the TMUs, but the Arc’s clock speed advantage and newer architecture more than compensate. The Arc also has 8 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The Quadro’s FP32 output is 2.369 TFLOPS; the Arc’s is 4.198 TFLOPS. The Arc also supports FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip, built on Kepler architecture, on a 28 nm process from TSMC. The die measures 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². This is a relatively large, low-density chip for its era. The Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip, built on Xe-HPG architecture, on a 6 nm process also from TSMC. The die is 157 mm² but contains 7,200 million transistors, yielding a density of 45.9 million per mm². That is 3.8 times higher transistor density. The Arc’s die is 47 percent smaller but has 103 percent more transistors, a signal of the process node advantage.

Architecturally, Kepler was designed for professional compute and OpenGL workloads, with a focus on FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth. Xe-HPG is Intel’s gaming and general-purpose architecture, featuring hardware ray tracing cores (8 in the Arc), support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, and a modern Vulkan 1.4 implementation. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0), which is an older feature level. The Arc also supports OpenGL 4.6, same as the Quadro, but its DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set includes mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other modern features that the Quadro cannot handle.

The generations reflect this. The Quadro is from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, released in July 2013. The Arc is from the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, released in June 2022. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. The Arc’s predecessor is Xe Graphics, and its successor is Battlemage. Both are end-of-life products, but the Arc is nearly a decade newer. The production status for both is listed as end-of-life in the database.

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A380 is the faster GPU by a wide margin in the only shared benchmark. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38224 dwarfs the Quadro’s 11771, and its FP32 compute (4.198 TFLOPS) is 77 percent higher. The Arc also has higher pixel and texture rates, more memory bandwidth (186.0 GB/s vs. 115.2 GB/s), and ray tracing support. For any modern workload using OpenCL, Vulkan, or DirectX 12, the Arc is the obvious choice. Its 8 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and Vulkan 1.4 make it future-proof compared to the Quadro.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M retains a niche. Its Geekbench Metal score of 8315 is useful for Apple-centric compute, and its higher percentile ranking (48th vs. 44th) reflects its stronger position among its peers. For legacy OpenCL compute on mobile workstations, the Quadro is a capable option, especially given its 8 GB of memory and 256-bit bus. However, its 771 MHz clock, 28 nm process, and lack of any DirectX benchmark data relegate it to a specialist role. The Arc A380’s 75 W TDP is also lower than the Quadro’s 100 W, despite delivering far more performance per watt.

For a desktop user seeking modern API support, ray tracing, and high compute throughput, the Arc A380 is the clear winner. For a user locked into a mobile workstation with MXM slots and needing Metal or OpenCL compute, the Quadro K5100M is the only choice that fits. The data does not support choosing the Quadro for any workload where the Arc can be installed. The Arc’s launch MSRP was 149 USD, but that fact aside, its performance characteristics dominate. The Quadro’s 2.369 TFLOPS and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth are simply too far behind the Arc’s 4.198 TFLOPS and 186.0 GB/s. The verdict is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A380 wins on performance, features, and efficiency, while the Quadro K5100M wins only on portability and Metal compatibility.